tv [untitled] September 10, 2014 3:30am-4:01am PDT
obligation for dealing with the pretrial population. >> and, it is not be a... your office allows for the monitoring and you are basically able to allow for the individuals to be in the system, is that true? >> i am not sure that i understand the question. >> let's say now, can, your office offer an individual to
be electronically monitored? >> well, in the bail proceedings. >> during the arraignment, the court ultimately makes the decision we make the argument and the defense council makes the argument about what we think is appropriate and you can imagine the scenario where the defense attorney will say this person is safe and he will come back to court and you should release him on the promise. and we might be saying we disagree with that and we think that there is danger or a risk of him not determining and the judge makes a determination of multiple things set, bail and release them on the promise to appear and on supervised promise to appear and go through the pretrial and have a case manager and i believe that in the court electronic monitoring but it will be at the individual's expense. >> so you make the argument to support having one to be put on the electronic monitoring. and what assessment do you use? >> we don't currently have a
tool which is what we are trying to develop. >> and you have made judgments. >> we have to make judgments >> we have to make judgments and how you will... >> sorry? >> has it failed you in determine of the judgments that have you made? >> well... >> the people that are offending were released? yes. >> and how long has this been happening? >> for as long as the criminal justice system has been in existence and that is largely been done without a tool which is why we are pushing so hard on the office in multiple fronts and the scientific measures for how we do our work, rather than relying on human instinct and the years of experience in the office to make those determinations and because you get the different out comes from that. >> and but you can continue to make those arguments without the tools? >> yes, i mean that it is necessitated by the process, right? >> we can't just say that everybody stays in or gets out. it is in the system that we have a bail hearing at the arraignment to determine if
someone liberties should be restrained. and so that is the system that we all function within when the district attorney was elected he said that i would like to have an informed process around that and a tool that my prosecutors in the court can rely on to help them to understand the individual and the circumstances better, rather than making this decision, without that. >> and so we are working wither earnestly on that. >> and thank you. >> that is the sort of development and privacy that i would like to encourage for this process. because it is critical to making the right decision, and those are hard decisions to make but in the courtroom, we have much more information than the sheriff has in the jail. >> before i want to do a little housekeeping and that is the
legislation, that is before you, there were sort of amendments and i think that as i recall from the supervisor days, they and those should be spoken to, so that they are memorialized in the record and i would like to return to answer these questions. >> could we briefly outline the amendments and incorporate them and then we will respond it >> that is right. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors if you look on page 2 of the digest, the last paragraph, indicates when we dealt with, and first of all the people who are placed on electronic monitoring were limited to those that consented to it and that has been addressed. in addition the committee requested, that the electronic monitoring in lieu of bail be offered only to inmates charged at low level offenses and that
has been incorporated. and finally, the committee requested that the ordinance requires that the superior court approve the placement of inmates on the electronic monitoring in lieu of bail in the district attorney objects to the placement, we have incorporated that and if you look at the ordinance itself, on page 3, section 13.63, you will see that we have limited to those who want to do it voluntarily and further down at section 13.64, the paragraph in there does indicate what is defined as a low level offense, and misdemeanors a person in custody, and 30 days, at least. and those charges of felonies and are those that will be eligible for sentencing pursuant to the section, 1170.h, which will be the regular felonies or not serious or violent.
and so those concerns have been met. further there was the added amendment of allowing for once an inmate or a defendant is evaluated pursuant to the sheriff's legislation here that the district attorney will be notified, if there is an objection, that the district attorney would notify us and that it will be calendared and so any decision with regard to placing someone on em will be by the judicial review by the court and so that has been implemented and there was no sole discretion on the sheriff to place someone on em. and in lieu of the bail pretrial. >> great, could you take a motion to amend the ordinance and on what has been explained and so we have a motion by supervisor yee? and we will take public comment before we act on that, and i just want to make sure that we have that motion on the table.
sheriff if you could respond. > really, the contradiction that is outlined by the fact that this is not legislation to initiate the sheriff's department or roles for the detention and we have not been doing this as a cavalier system where we think that this person gets to go on the end or this person does not. we have a well designed, risk assessment tool, we have a well designed process, that scrutinizes and double and triple scrutinizes our decision to want to advance someone with electronic monitoring earlier in the discussion, i shared
with you, i think that the strong results of 2013, and there is no county, board of supervisors in this state that would stand tall and proud to the sheriff's department, and when you are hearing of the results of that staff, about you know, at that level, and as a sheriff i am going to trumpet that, and if we did not have that kind of success rate, then i might be back on my heals thinking, we may not be doing something right. i am not going to preinclude the judge's process and we are not offering to do anything unlaterally and we are simply recognizing the fact that the da is not in our jail systems and adult probation is not in
our jail systems, to create a process that the district attorney and everyone else in the system to then go before the judge. but to be so presumptuous, for anyone to dictate that there should be a one universal risk assessment tool when we use the risk assessment tool i would not say that it is better or worse than adult probation and it is not better or worse than the public defender and the one that is not invented yet by the district attorney and then i would not say that that would be the one that super seeds another one. because, we all should stand before the judge. and that is exactly, what this process invents in this legislation. >> could i just clarify. supervisor yee, actually and then we will go from supervisor mar. >> and i appreciate your response in regards to the risk assessment to what you may have.
and part of this, and i also appreciate your track record at the sheriff's department. and in regards to em. and to me, i am very appreciative of this effort to have another opportunity to look at, and an individual to see if this individual weren't being reunified to the community and their family if they have a family and anything that we can do that i am very supportive of it. the one thing that is not in this legislation that i would like you to consider and for us to read in and it sounds like you were going to do it any way, is that it be really good for us to because, much of what
we are talking about is continuing on the individuals, that you are, and the people that actually do the risk assessment. and they are or it seems like they are well trained to do this. and some point it may fall apart, hopefully not. but, it would be good for us as supervisors to ask for at least annual evaluation of the program, so that we could reassure the public that the things that you are talking about, are being or successful. in i was in your seat would i ask for the same thing. >> i think that level that transparency and holding us accountable is exactly i think consistent with all of our buy-in to what is working and what may not be, and the ability to bring us altogether to have this discussion, is exactly where i think that the progressive, smart, public
safety driven criminal justice system in san francisco needs to go and i think that that is the track that we are on. >> so, i would like to add, on that, some language to it, and to add to your other amendments as part of this amendment of legislation. >> i welcome that. >> great. >> supervisor mar? >> sheriff, thank you, again for explaining the process, and i know that miss foto on behalf of the district attorney office gave an example of low level offenders that, or low level offenses that being considered but, not low level offenders in this risk management evaluation and i am just wondering how we could be assured that we look at all of the information and not just the offense but also, the record of the offenders, if i was, and if i am understanding correctly what she was saying. >> no, and i think that opens the door for some interesting,
analogies and i will give you an example. and these are i think, the representations by the da's office. and with what they are asking, if somebody is charged currently, with a simple possession, of drugs and the offense that the district attorney is now trumpeting for the state wide initiative to have lowered to a misdemeanor defense, this candidate for em would be ineligible for the electronic monitoring because a day, prior conviction that would have existed based on their concerns of this legislation. and so that, in there is an inherit contusion -contradiction that we do not make a broad stroke of what this does and this is why that i am investing in the power of the da and the judicial system
then to referee, and render the decision on whether someone should be on em or not. that is built into the legislation and it is built into the successful history of our departments, and administration of the electronic monitoring. >> thank you. >> i appreciate that and i think that that is, and i think that for me, that is a really important selling point to the extent that there is a difference of opinion whether it is because of the offense or the offender, and that the that each side has the ability to make their case before a judge who can then decide what the right out come is. >> but, one question that i wanted to just get clarity on something is that the district attorney indicated the office indicated that they don't have an assessment tool for the purposes of dealing with the electronic monitoring cases? do you have an assessment tool that the sheriff department have an assessment tool? >> we do and i think that we should be careful the catch
phrase assessment tools, because there are, it is terminology that often is broadly referred to but it is also vendor driven and we have tools that the adult probation uses as known as compass and the sheriff's department and the ones that we are expanding and the current tool that our em unit has been using, has everything to do with the very scrutinized criteria, of looking at history, cleft and ir and f.b.i. national data, and conferencing with the classification unit and the adult probation and others within the system to determine whether we should put someone on electronic monitoring or not. but keep in mind, and this is not uncommon, that it is
restrictive in the da and the courts. and why the cottage industry is starting to spring back and by rejecting the people and yet, and then the courts and i think that this was just sort of inad ver tant was asking that the people to be put on em and find an em vendor and that they will pay themselves and that they will pay to be put on em after we officially rejected the em.
and i think that our assessment tool should go out for coffee, and the tool and the public defender will want to come out sxh that they want to sort of commingle we should and there is not a uniform assessment tool, that is to form and you should not necessarily be dictated by a one criminal justice agency and let the courts decide. >> and i would like to hear from adult probation, i would have to say that i am rather shocked that the da assessment tool, given the numbers of electronic monitoring cases that i have imagined have gone through the courts at this very surprised by that. >> but i trust, and frankly, this is why i don't, think that they should demean themselves or ourselves with them in the fact that they have been using
their historical knowledge, and without an assessment tool, and that is work for them. and as they grow in to the era of an assessment tool that is great too and that is when the two should come together and the bottom line, judges should decide the out come of this not us. >> could we hear from the adult probation, please? >> and this really is if you could describe it to where you could understand, this is a sifting process, is that people get arrested and there is a determination made whether they are eligible for release and
that is a number of different factors that come into play, and it is my understanding... someone who is innocent until proven guilty and it is highly prejudicial and we know that there are people that need to be incarcerates because they are dangerous but there are also people on paper may look inappropriate, because they have a low level crime and they have five failure to appear and perhaps there is new information that developed,
that now makes them a low risk from custody, and that is really respond to the chief still, to openly support this, was the fact that it was going to go and this whole process was going to go in front of a judicial officer once again. >> and i appreciate that, and do you feel that the legislation does everything possible to the ex-at the present time that we can to protect the public here
are you comfortable? >> i am not privy to the risk instruments and i know that there are providers out there that are profekting those and that is perhaps, where we all get together and we select one that we could all agree with. and but from bha we have now, it is what it is. and i think that you know, no one no one that i am aware of wants to have anything negative tragic occur on their watch and even the best laid plans, and let's be frank, there is just no guarantee. we do the best that we can, knowing what is the worst case scenario. okay. >> i have a number of speaker cards, any member of the public
that would like to speak, come on up and if you don't mind, lining up to the right and our left. please come forward. >> good morning, supervisor campos, and supervisor yee, it is good to see you today and thank you for taking up this important issue and i am jessy, the policy director for the legal services for the prisoners with children and here on behalf of the director dorothy none and we support the proposed ordinance in principal, definitely we appreciate the sheriff's attention to this important issue and the concept into bringing more people out of the jail and into the community and it coincides with our mission of reuniting the families and releasing the incarcerated people, however, i would like to make several suggestions about the particulars of the way that this is implemented and i see that there are two separate sections in the ordinance, first, 13.63, the home detention and 13.64, the
electronic monitoring for 13.63, home detention it looks like most of this is already authorized by the state law and redundant, although we appreciate the notion that the sheriff wants to bring it to the board of supervisors for a full buy-in, and we ask that the sheriff's department be required to publish the rules and we appreciate being able to find the update, for those who are able to be released from their home instead of on electronic monitoring and second it would be good to have more annual public reporting and evaluation. and so we know how many people are out of jail on this program. of moving to electronic monitoring that is more controversial here today, we as the legal services for the prisonerwise children do support the idea that more people could be released from
the setting including on the electronic monitoring and however, we think that it will be even more beneficial from the community if the people are released on the less restrictive means and we have heard the discussion here of the arraignment hearing, where some of the people are released on their own bonds, and the or bonds meaning that the judge in court, trust them to return to court when it is their time and are not requiring them to sheriff their time and we think that for the san francisco or project will greatly increase the public safety as the people are able to return to the community without these risks to continue to earn the income and support their family and also we have heard the praise here today for the pretrial deversion project, the san francisco pretrial deversion project and already supervises every 1,000 people every day in san francisco and very successfully and has won national awards for the excellent work and we feel that increasing funding for this program will do an even better
job than electronic monitoring for continuing to beneficially supervise this population, and so for all of these reasons we ask that the electronic monitoring be allowed that increasingly by, and released on the pretrial inversion. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good morning, my name is har rot davis and i am a member of the community and i guess that i am actually just reiterating what jessy stout just said is that in i think that the electronic monitoring is good, in that it does give alternatives to the people being incarcerated with the low level of offenses, and the people who are not a risk to committing more violent crimes, and in the society. but i think that there are other processes in place, and
or, and that don't require people to get our economically disadvantaged to help to put out the money because with the electronic monitoring it also is maybe, not as cost effective for the people who are economically disadvantaged. over all i think that there are systems in place that allow these, and the deversion program, also, and i actually had a member of my family who had never had any or been arrested or had any problems, and that was on this and it was for our family he could have been or but for our family it was cost a lot of money and it was really hard on us. so in theory i think that we already have a law in place for this. and so i am kind of saying why we have to add to it. and so i can see that if the people have been in jail for 30 days to 60 days and showing the good behavior and the staff are
able to assess them, and see that yeah, they are possibly really low risk to the community to recommend that they be released on the electronic monitoring but much would prefer as i said or. and on the deversion. thank you. >> thank you. very much. >> next speaker, please? >> and good afternoon supervisors. and it was very interested and interesting to me for the da, because i support all parts of the law enforcement. but i was really surprised when the da compared the people like with a million dollar bond murder, you know, committing a murder, to what is going on here today. because, i was like what? how can you just like the sheriff was saying, it is
apples and oranges to the way in los angeles, but, we just like when i was in my addiction some years ago, and i was in the middle of the revolving door because of my addiction, but, with the money that could be saved for opening a new jail, that if people are allowed to go on the monitoring and process that could go into housing, and then, in the mental health services and other things that would that is really needed to help the people stay out of jail. so, i really wish that you would bring this forth to the full board, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good afternoon. my name is luke gordon and i am the executive director of
recovery survival, and i am here in full support of the electronic monitoring and home detention. and because i work with this population every day. and what i have come to realize is that the taxpayer i have something here and as a taxpayer, i don't think that it is cost effective to leave a person for a low level crime in jail at 140 dollars and upwards a day as opposed to putting them on the electronic monitoring at 16 dollars a day or something in that vicinity and the point is that we know that that person is every day, every second of every day. and it is absolute positive way to keep complete transparency, for that client, is and it makes a community, a whole lot safer, to be able to identify where that person is and i am mot talking about a murderer, i am talking about a guy who did petty theft or something like that. and so i think that they don't
have the economic resources to bail themselves out and as a pretrial, too, i think that electronic monitoring is the best way to go and 100 percent support it as a taxpayer and as a service provider to the sheriff's department to probation and to the superior court, thank you. >> thank you, sir, the next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is martha roots and i am here today as an ankle monitor success story. san francisco sheriff department assessed me, and put me on an ankle monitor for 75 days. and that time, i was electronically monitored through all of my walk of every day and i was also home detained after 9:00 p.m., in that time, i got my high school diploma, received an internship through the sheriff's department and have now been working for three years. and so, this does work for